Message from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988

[dmorgan]

Hey Tradies, Read this document given by then Cardinal Ratzinger to the Chilean Bishops regarding Archbishop Lefebvre. You will find it very telling of how H.H. Pope Benedict XVI views Tradition and the post-conciliar church. Please post comments or thoughts.

unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/

 

[diggerdomer]

Hey Tradies, Read this document given by then Cardinal Ratzinger to the Chilean Bishops regarding Archbishop Lefebvre. You will find it very telling of how H.H. Pope Benedict XVI views Tradition and the post-conciliar church. Please post comments or thoughts.

unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/

Completely consistent, even after 20+ years, with the Church’s pastoral concern for schismatics/heretics. Thanks for sharing.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

I think that his writings contain a lot of contradictive remarks. I’ve read quite a lot of the works from Cardinal Ratzinger and I don’t see a whole lot of tradition flowing from his works. It seems as though he considers tradition “nostalgic” and accuses traditionalists of clinging on to the past.

Here is a bit of the contradiction found in the posted link:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church."

Then he states:

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;…”

Yet, all the progressives in the Church treated Vatican II as if it was some sort of super council. Why is Vatican II, a merely pastoral council, binding upon the Church?

After reading a lot of his progressive works, it is hard for me to reconcile his “traditional” themed speeches with his progressive thinking…

God Bless

 

[Lujack]

Yet, all the progressives in the Church treated Vatican II as if it was some sort of super council. Why is Vatican II, a merely pastoral council, binding upon the Church?

Because it is authoritative. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said that all Catholics must wear blue socks to Mass from now on in honor of Mary, all Catholics would have to wear blue socks to Mass. I could say “Now wait a minute, this is rather pointless. Wearing blue socks to Mass doesn’t accomplish anything.” I could say “Boy, the Pope made a silly decision on this blue socks thing!” and “The Pope should let us wear any kind of socks! I hope he changes it soon!” I could even go to the Vatican and say “Please, there’s no real need for these blue socks!” After all, there’s no blue sock dogma; a Pope is free to change it whenever he wants. But until he does, I still have to wear the blue socks.

Note: That’s not supposed to be any kind of comment on the Second Vatican Council, which I have no negative feelings towards; it is merely an analogy.

 

[MarkThompson]

Because it is authoritative. If the Pope came out tomorrow and said that all Catholics must wear blue socks to Mass from now on in honor of Mary, all Catholics would have to wear blue socks to Mass. I could say “Now wait a minute, this is rather pointless. Wearing blue socks to Mass doesn’t accomplish anything.” I could say “Boy, the Pope made a silly decision on this blue socks thing!” and “The Pope should let us wear any kind of socks! I hope he changes it soon!” I could even go to the Vatican and say “Please, there’s no real need for these blue socks!” After all, there’s no blue sock dogma; a Pope is free to change it whenever he wants. But until he does, I still have to wear the blue socks.

Note: That’s not supposed to be any kind of comment on the Second Vatican Council, which I have no negative feelings towards; it is merely an analogy.

Well said, Lujack. Yes, a “pastoral council” means you don’t have to agree with it, in the way you have to agree with the Real Presence or the Immaculate Conception, but you still have to follow it, unless and until it’s changed, like you have to follow canon law or the GIRM. You can argue that the Code of Canon Law should be amended, and you can argue that the dictates of Vatican II ought to be changed, but you can’t just spontaneously decide to ignore them and be disobedient.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Because it is authoritative.

On what specifically? Cardinal Ratzinger specifically states that “…this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level…”

Not to get into a tiff over Vatican II and take away from the original post, but Cardinal Ratzinger was definitely not a traditionalist.

God Bless

 

[Megan7]

:

I think that his writings contain a lot of contradictive remarks. I’ve read quite a lot of the works from Cardinal Ratzinger and I don’t see a whole lot of tradition flowing from his works. It seems as though he considers tradition “nostalgic” and accuses traditionalists of clinging on to the past.

Here is a bit of the contradiction found in the posted link:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church."

Then he states:

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;…”

Yet, all the progressives in the Church treated Vatican II as if it was some sort of super council. Why is Vatican II, a merely pastoral council, binding upon the Church?

After reading a lot of his progressive works, it is hard for me to reconcile his “traditional” themed speeches with his progressive thinking…

God Bless

Thanks for your post SGT ROCK!
I have to agree with you, regarding contradicting statements, I thought I was just losing it It has happened several times.
Could you please elaborate more on this. It would really be helpful.
Also, you made a comment about him not being a traditionalist. I have also felt this at times, then I read something else & I think, oh, but he is, then another statement & I am oh, but he is not…my head spins with it all. I appreciate more (name removed by moderator)ut on this as well.
Thanks!
God Bless!
Megan

 

[otjm]

:

Thanks for your post SGT ROCK!
I have to agree with you, regarding contradicting statements, I thought I was just losing it It has happened several times.
Could you please elaborate more on this. It would really be helpful.
Also, you made a comment about him not being a traditionalist. I have also felt this at times, then I read something else & I think, oh, but he is, then another statement & I am oh, but he is not…my head spins with it all. I appreciate more (name removed by moderator)ut on this as well.
Thanks!
God Bless!
Megan

Perhaps your decision that the Pope is not a traditionalist is based on how you define that term.

 

[dmorgan]

My take away from this document and other writings of the Holy Father are:
He is traditional,
He is a lead by example teacher,
He is trying to unify the Church through small, sugical initiatives( talks with sspx, new translation of the liturgy in english, removal of requirements for the Tridentine Mass, installing conservative Bishops in key posts, etc.).
He has to walk slowly in order to keep the Modernists from creating trouble.

As I have learned, although the Holy Father occupies the Chair of Peter, He still has to work within the structure of the Church and the various Bishops councils. Having read the Vatican II documents, I find that although ambiguos they were worded to protect tradition. Having lived through the abuses committed in the name of Vatican II I know how much damage has been done by the Modernists within the Church. I truly believe our Pope is trying to reign in the abuses and return the connection between the pre- and post-conciliar Church. Much like any other endevour involving more than one person, changes must be done in a way such that major disruptions are avoided, unlike the changes we saw after the “spirit of V-II” crowd strarted their “new deal”. I pray daily for a re-awakening within the Church of our Tradition and our Faith. And I pray for our Pope that God will assist him in returning the Church to the Sacredness we have had in the past. Just my .02

 

[KC91]

Just like JP2, B16 does not aim to please any particular faction in the Church, he has viewpoints that belong to both factions.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

:

Thanks for your post SGT ROCK!
I have to agree with you, regarding contradicting statements, I thought I was just losing it It has happened several times.
Could you please elaborate more on this. It would really be helpful.
Also, you made a comment about him not being a traditionalist. I have also felt this at times, then I read something else & I think, oh, but he is, then another statement & I am oh, but he is not…my head spins with it all. I appreciate more (name removed by moderator)ut on this as well.
Thanks!
God Bless!
Megan

It looks like we are in the same boat on this one…

I will get back to you on some other issues I have with his ideology, give me a few to sift through my information.

God Bless

 

[diggerdomer]

I Why is Vatican II, a merely pastoral council, binding upon the Church?

Because it’s an ecumenical council, as the Catholic Church teaches. Just like the 20 that preceded it. There’s no higher source of teaching authority the Church has.

 

[Layman]

You can argue that the Code of Canon Law should be amended, and you can argue that the dictates of Vatican II ought to be changed, but you can’t just spontaneously decide to ignore them and be disobedient.

Can anyone give me a bullet-point list of what Vat. II propounded? The main tenets or significant propositions?

 

[MarkThompson]

Can anyone give me a bullet-point list of what Vat. II propounded? The main tenets or significant propositions?

LOL, isn’t it covered in the middle link of your signature?

 

[Sirach2]

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;…”

Pastoral, yes, with respect to implementing existing dogmatic truths in our modern times.

Yet, all the progressives in the Church treated Vatican II as if it was some sort of super council. Why is Vatican II, a merely pastoral council, binding upon the Church?

Although it addressed pastoral concerns, it was convened as an ecumenical council, and all of these ecumenical councils are infallible. Maybe it will help to read the statement of Pope Paul VI officially closing the Vatican II Council.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs, and, nourishing the flame of charity it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast

 

[Layman]

LOL, isn’t it covered in the middle link of your signature?

No.

1. There were 16 official documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. They covered a wide range of subjects from the liturgy, to ecumenism, to the Church in the modern world. In the short time I have available to me** I shall deal with only one** - The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). This is the document that has had the biggest impact on the daily lives of the ordinary Catholics in the pew - people like ourselves. Where to begin?

Vatican II is used as a counter-argument to those arguing against novelty. I want to know what it is held by those people to propose; the key points.

This may help:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

What I’ve filleted so far (my emphases):

• Change to Eucharistic fast.
• Establishement of a Synod of Bishops.

- The decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae;

…

During this period, which began on 14 September 1964, the Council Fathers worked through a large volume of proposals. Schemata on ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the official view on Protestant and Eastern Orthodox “separated brethren”, the Eastern Rite churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) were approved and promulgated by the Pope.

…

Nostra Aetate, which stated that **the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians.; **

…

Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

In its first chapter, titled “The Mystery of the Church,” is the famous statement that "the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.’ This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."

…

One of the first issues considered by the council, and the matter that had the most immediate effect on the lives of individual Catholics, was the revision of the liturgy. The central idea was that there ought to be greater lay participation in the liturgy. In the mid-1960s, permissions were granted to celebrate most of the Mass in vernacular languages, including the Canon from 1967 onwards.

…

The role of the bishops of the Church was brought into renewed prominence, especially when seen collectively, as a college that has succeeded to that of the Apostles in teaching and governing the Church. This college does not exist without its head, the successor of St. Peter.

I propose that it is perfectly possible to ignore the Second Vatican Council, what it proposed and what it is held to propose by a section of the Church and still be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Timothy17]

God bless him and keep him safe; may St. Michael the Archangel continue to watch over and protect him, and may he -lead by the Holy Spirit- conquer with Truth and enjoy its Triumph.

The liturgy
is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush;
it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again.
The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an
interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we
are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the
essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual
of the Church; all the rest diminishes it.

 

[rwoehmke]

I propose that it is perfectly possible to ignore the Second Vatican Council, what it proposed and what it is held to propose by a section of the Church and still be a Catholic in good standing.

What ever, its your soul.

 

[Layman]

So, what, exactly, propounded by Vat II, would place my immortal sould in jeopardy, if I did not believe in it?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Having read the Vatican II documents, I find that although ambiguos they were worded to protect tradition.

I believe just the opposite is the case. They were written so that one could interpret them in a very liberal way, or as a continuation of the pre-conciliar teachings. And then the church remained silent on how they should be interpreted and left it to Bishops, priests, and laity to apply it as they saw fit.

Perhaps part of what will emerge from the doctrinal discussions (with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X) currently taking place in Rome is a definitive interpretation of some the most egregiously abused documents?